There are times, however, when the Supreme Court formally alters precedent and, in so doing, affirms the decision of a lower court. That is, the Supreme Court upholds a lower court ruling that conflicts with or even ignores its past decisions. As subordinates in the judicial hierarchy, lower court judges are expected to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court. According to the doctrine of stare decisis, the Supreme Court has a duty to follow its own precedents. The authors analyze the overruling decisions of the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist courts that affirmed lower court rulings. Several issues are addressed in the analysis: (1) circumstances in which lower courts perceive a marked deviation from Supreme Court precedent is legally and politically safe; (2) evidence that lower courts attempt to anticipate the Supreme Court's reaction to an alteration in precedent; and (3) the role of ideology in lower court rulings. Unique instances in which lower courts appear to alter Supreme Court precedent are examined. Supreme Court cases of interest are listed in two appendixes. 24 references, 64 footnotes, 2 tables, and 1 figure